Sunday, February 04, 2007

Bush visits House Democrats (Guest post by Noise)

The corporate media, with message points from the RNC and Karl Rove, have made the characters of Bush and Cheney off limits, as if they were born with some sort of eternal dispensation that keeps their motives from being questioned.

This, of course, keeps them from being accountable for their endless broken promises, lies and abysmal performances.

When BuzzFlash began its online news and commentary service, nearly seven years ago, one of our motivations was drawing light on how hypocritical the Republicans and their mob of supporters were and are.(1)

Great editorial by Buzzflash. Why bring it up again? Because of Bush's most recent comments:

He said disagreeing with him over the war -- as many in the room do -- does not mean "you don't share the same sense of patriotism I do.""You can get that thought out of your mind, if that's what some believe," the president said. "These are tough times, but there's no doubt in my mind that you want to secure this homeland as much as I do.""I listened to many members here, I listened to members of my own party, I listened to the military and came up with a plan that I genuinely believe has the best of succeeding," the president said.(2)

Bush truly seems to believe he is the Arbiter of Patriotism. Bizarre. Why won't the corporate media question his patriotism? Why do they assume he is acting in good faith?

The phrase "secure this homeland" strikes me as particularly creepy. In part it's the echo of "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," the notorious Neocon tract written for Binyamin Netanyahu in 1996 that first laid out the program for destabilizing the Middle East for the sake of Israel. But there's more to it than that.

The real creepiness may be built into the very grammar of the phrase. A person can only have one homeland. It means the place you call home So you might speak about "my homeland" or "your homeland." But you wouldn't normally say "this homeland" or "that homeland" or "the other homeland."

Extending the meaning of the word to refer to the nation as a whole, as in "homeland security," already has disquieting fascist overtones, since it transfers the very personal, intimate connotations of "home" to a collective national entity. *My* homeland is a wide and expansive realm, from sea to shining sea, from the redwood forests to the Gulfstream waters, and all that. A place where you can ramble around and discover new things and know that wherever you go, you'll always be at home.

But *the* homeland is much smaller -- a cramped little house, with walls and locks and "no trespassing" signs to keep the neighbors out, and all of us stuck in here together, playing the radio too loud and getting on each other's nerves.

Beyond that, Bush's phrase "secure this homeland" takes things even a step further. It implies an entire world of locked-down little fortresses, all of them peering suspiciously at one another from behind their gates -- all of them to be treated as walled-off entities, whether they choose to regard themselves that way or not.

If that's the sort of world Bush lives in, I've got to say it's a vision of the inside of his soul that I really didn't need to have, especially not on a slow Sunday morning.

I have thought the idea of a "crime-free zone" lends itself to the same kind of questioning analysis.

First of all, a "crime-free zone" is just one of a number of ways of putting it. You can try to have "drug-free zones," like around schools. Or maybe a "bum-free zone" where a commercial district can shoo their bums away. Put 'em in jail for just entering the place. There are "Prostitution free zones" There are still "driving slow trolling for dates - free zones" in my city. You can't drive slow down Broadway between the hours of this to that.

As for the "crime-free zones," I think that it's a lousy way of dealing with crime. It says we are going to expend city money to keep criminal activity out of this place, but as a result, it's going to get worse everywhere else.

I thought the "drug-free zone around schools could be nothing but a sham. Yes, the drugs won't be allowed within two blocks of school. But the rest of the neighborhood might just find more of the stuff. These kind of ideas to protect people seem so poorly thought out. The drugs are available...but not here?

The idea of an effort to protect the "Homeland" seems to be another such bad idea. While the Homeland might be protected, are we at more risk just over the border?

While they are protecting the "Homeland" from terrorists, are we just giving up on the idea of a free country? I suspect that's one of the tradeoffs that these people thinkl is "worth it" to them.

So, are the foxes guarding the chickens "homeland?" This would be my first question.

We might wonder, why people are not so upset about the idea that they are no more secure, and when the ideas these people come up with are so lame, doesn't that suggest the "guardians" are the problem...My answer is, people are too busy with living, working, paying bills, to understand what's going on. They also feel helpless about the situation.

How is a chicken going to challenge the foxes staring down on them at the door of their coop?